On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 14:56, Marek Habersack wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 04:10:54AM +0100, Bastien Nocera scribbled: > > On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 17:17, Marek Habersack wrote: > > > As I wrote previously, the options I've been asked about (and it happens > > > that I've been using them myself) were the workspace switching wrap option, > > > the opaque vs. wireframe move/resize options. For me it's just a matter of > > > personal preference - I don't like the visual effect of moving a full window > > > or resizing a full window - but people who asked me have slightly older and > > > slower hardware where the video card simply doesn't do well when a full > > > window is dragged/resized. That's about the only options I'd like to see > > > configurable somewhere. > > > > The only person I heard on this list complaining has a 486. The class of > > computers we are (loosely) targetting for Gnome is a 300 Mhz machine > It's not a matter of Mhz in your CPU, it's a matter of what your video > hardware can do. If you have a Trident or S3 that's 4 years (or even more) > old, you will have bad performance even on Athlon 2000+. Just a side note to Athlon 2000+ users that have a Trident video card: you have your priorities wrong ;) > > with above 32 megs of ram (it probably works on slower machines, > > depending on the arch, the pieces of software you usually run, etc.) > > > > Thinking of running a modern desktop on a 486 is just a dream. > The people I talked to are from a school around here that has only K6 > machines with 1MB S3 Trio cards. I'm happy they run Linux and GNOME - should I tell them to use > Win3.1 just because they cannot switch a stupid option on or off? I don't > think so. Well, add a compile-time option. I know that Havoc won't accept the patch because it would make more sense to get the opaque resizing working well than making it optional. > > (BTW, metacity has "workspace switching wrap option", I added it, > > because I used it with Window Maker, and it made sense). > And metacity has no way to turn opaque resizing/moving off. At least I > haven't found such an option. > > > > > > Hmm, another question has just popped up in my mind. Looking at the lack > > > > > of the window manager configuration applet in the control panel and > > > > > reading some messages here and there I've gotten the impression that GNOME > > > > > is aiming at tight window manager integration with the desktop (kind of > > > > > the KDE one) - is that true or is it just my (incorrect) impression? > > > > > > > > We're definitely aiming for tight integration (why wouldn't we?) but there's > > > That's ok as long as the integration isn't too tight - as to the point where > > > one cannot switch to a different window manager. > > > > Why is the focal point of this community on "window managers" ? I don't > It's on _choice_. The beauty of GNOME has always been in the possibility to > make choices - unlike with KDE or Windows where you have virtually no > choice. For gnome2, the choice is very much limited: metacity, sawfish or kwin. You can switch to use metacity under KDE if you want, just edit kdestart and change the window manager there (IIRC). > > see any KDE people whinging about the fact that they can only run kwin > And you think it's an argument? That the KDE people don't whine? Besides I > don't _whine_ - I see no reason for you to be hostile. If I can't run GNOME > with a window manager of my choice, I will run crippled GNOME - that's it. I > was just asking, out of curiosity - there's no need for you to jump the gun. I said whinge. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=whinge Which is very different from whining. > > (or whatever the latest version of it is called). Sawfish has a lot of > > shortcomings, the main one being that nobody really understands its > > code, and that John is busy. > So? That's my problem if I want to use Sawfish not Metacity, right? I just > need an option not to use whatever the GNOME desktop comes with by default. > I see no point in limiting oneself when/where such limitation is not backed > up by any rational reasons. > > > Just like there's only one file-manager supported in Gnome, there could > > well be only one window manager supported. Sounds cool to me. > Sounds awful to me. I don't use neither GMC nor Nautilus, for example. If I > weren't allowed to switch them off and to choose NOT to use them, I would > never use GNOME (or any other desktop software that forbids me to do so) - I > hope you're not advocating a monolithic desktop? Yes I am, because an integrated desktop is a monolithic desktop. If you want to turn off that software or that one, well, good for you. But I really don't think that "supporting" a desktop that would allow you to change which file-manager you're running is a very clever move. > > > > Most of your questions would be best answered on GNOME's desktop-devel-list, > > > > rather than the Debian package maintainer's list. > > > I guess you're right ;) - it's just that something inside me is against > > > subscribing to yet another voluminous mailing list, haha :)). But I suppose > > > that would be the right way :) > > > > *shrug* Talk to your dog rather than to your doctor, when you feel sick, > > the doctor lives too far, right ? > What is your problem? I am subscribed to all the GNOME lists I need already. My problem is "why on earth do you post OT comments on this list if you're already subscribed to Gnome mailing-lists, huh ?" > Haven't you noticed the smileys? Calm down, please. Calm "down" ? I couldn't be more calm than I am now. If you can't take discussions, don't try to discuss. I thought developers had a thick skin. Cheers -- /Bastien Nocera http://hadess.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part